Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now - the guy who worked a year for $1.00, on good faith of the bonus, now has no money to pay for his home, the kids colleges, his credit cards etc - and now he loses the home, cars etc.
Yep - TM is all for that I'm sure.
Couldn't he use some of last year's bonus?
Do you really think his salary was his primary source of income?
More likely it was bonuses or stocks providing the most value for the guy.
The $1 salary is a gimmick, he hasn't been hurting.
I take that back, if he was living beyond his means... say, spending 35 times his income, I can see why he'd be upset about his bonus. Not that it would make him right.
The bailout was fairly unique, was it not?
Not something that happens every day?
Treat the bailout like bankruptcy court, rather than business as usual.
I'm fully on board with the attempts to limit bailed out (taxpayer funded) firms pay/bonuses, which are ridiculous for failing companies.
How many people complained about the $2BILLION spent to build a baseball stadiums for millionaire players, now they want to complain about paying CEO's $112K bonuses who work for $1 a year..
2 billion? Yankees new stadium? Wikipedia says 1.6 Billion is the projected cost, but that is close enough. Though it wasn't built for the millionaire players - it was built for the owners (who will say it was for the fans!).
And the bonus from the OP was 750k, not 112k.
Quote:
Of $1.6 billion sought for the stadia, city and state taxpayers would pick up half the tab for construction, $800 million, along with $390 million on extra transportation.
That's a bit ridiculous - I thought the Steinbrenner's were doing ok. I'd be curious how they struck that deal (or how any team does that, though at least one was not publicly financed). Is there an implied increase in tax revenues (sales tax at least)? I'm certain there is a good argument for it.
Quote:
How many are asking bus drives, subway operators, toll booth operators etc because most of those operating and building expenses are also on the taxpayers dime?
Give me a break!!
Wait a sec.. you are telling me that toll booths lose money?
And I've never been on a free subway - are they losing money?
Bus drivers? Is their salary affected negatively by the stadium?
I fully don't understand what you are trying to say.
I'll try again.
Nope, still no.
Expound?
I suspect that the level of support for employment contracts at AIG would never be enjoyed by members of the UAW on this forum. Strange that.
Yeah, it's real funny hearing AIG employees, and others who defend them, whine about a contract that's legally binding. Whatever happened to making the company viable? Where's the love-of-the-company? Let's open up that contract, buddy! Time to rework that bad boy! AIG employees should do whatever it takes to make the company solvent, right?
This is one of those great double-standard issues floating around.
I can't believe some people would even defend the contract issue on behalf of AIG.
Then perhaps you are TOTALLY CLUELESS that the bonus's were contractually agreed to PRIOR TO any issues with AIG. And that if AIG had not paid them as agreed - AIG would have then become obligated for 3 times the bonus amount plus other damages - and that all legal reviews back this up.
And the 90% take crap - was just that - crap. Illegal as hell.
Then you ARE totally clueless that contracts get RE-negotiated all the time!
And how exactly was AIG going to pay those "retention" bonuses? The money injected into AIG wasn't its own, or earned, but taxpayer's to help the business survive not run an "executive welfare program".
Good thought! If AIG didn't have any money and had to get a bailout from us....why would they have to pay bonuses? Answer ...they didn't.
You dont think people deserve to work for more than $1 a year? Please stop your envy for people who work hard and deserve to be paid.
Regardless as to why a company is having hardship, its employees are entitled to a paycheck..
Not if they're crooks, not if they helped cause the financial terrorist attacks on America.
Stop worshipping and feeling sorry for the uber wealthy...it looks silly.
These scumbag jerks don't REALLY have to live on $1 a year...DUH! I think they may just have some more money stashed away from all their years of "hard work" (fleecing people).
Yeah, it's real funny hearing AIG employees, and others who defend them, whine about a contract that's legally binding. Whatever happened to making the company viable? Where's the love-of-the-company? Let's open up that contract, buddy! Time to rework that bad boy! AIG employees should do whatever it takes to make the company solvent, right?
This is one of those great double-standard issues floating around.
I can't believe some people would even defend the contract issue on behalf of AIG.
Yup, no problem with opening up UAW workers contract...nope, none at all.....
But the UBER WEALTHY are GODS to repubs and you mustn't anger them or bad things will happen to you
Imagine heading up the financial products division, then denying any responsibility for the misdeeds of that division.
I believe that if you read the letter, you would learn that the Financial Products Division was not the cause of AIG's problems. I don't have a copy of the letter in front of me, but I recall that when I heard it read on the radio, that is what he said.
These people were shafted. Plain and simple. The government has no justification (nor a right) to confiscate somebody's salary, that was part of a contract, and especially when the government (Barak Obama, and all the Democrats that crafted this so-called "stimulus" bill) knew that the bonuses were to be paid, made specific allowance for them, and then tried to deny everything. So typical of Democrats. The lying bunch of cheats!
I would not have returned any legally contractual bonus I had received - what crap
I wouldn't have either, and I would have told the Democrats to shove it up their rosey red....and if they attempted to take it or tax it at 90%, I would have sued the government and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. I think there are plenty of lawfirms around that would have been happy to take the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
